Most fierce competitor of all time

This is not about accomplishment/talent but strictly about a fierce competitor.

I would Nadal on the men side and Seles on the women side. Some of you might say Connors which is fine. McEnroe once said if he wants to increases the competitiveness level, he emulate Connors since he think no one wanted more than him.

I would say Serena for the women. No women has ever won as many big slam matches from the brink of defeat or saved as many match points against her. King, Evert, Graf, and Seles would be my honorable mentions with King probably taking runner up. I might have picked Seles but her poor comeback from the stabbing was not the stuff of the toughest competitor.

For men I would say Connors. Honorable mentions to Nadal, Sampras, Muster, Chang, and Hewitt.

Wrong.Being cocky or agressive is a genetic question but there are many different ways to be competitive and absolutely nothing to do with behaviour tham inner strength and resilience
Were cold champs like Laver,Rosewall,Lacoste,Borg,Lendl,Wilander,Kodes,Sedgman,Kramer,Sampras i,Newcombe,Smith or Federer less competitive than hot extroverts like Tildem,Perry,Budge,Hoad,Gonzales,Nastase,Connors,Agassi,Becker or Nadal?
I do not think so.All of them have made history cause they were all ferocious competitors and it had nothing to do with personaluty

Connor’s run in 91 was all competitiveness and will to win. His tennis skills had zero impact on those results. You can be younger, more technical, faster and stronger but there is nothing that can replace the heart and mind of a champion. Connor’s is someone I would go to war with.

Of course. Being fierce doesn't make up for talent and I think Borg was every bit the competitor that Connors was. While Connors is super talented, Borg was arguably the greatest talent (with Laver, Hoad and a number of others) in tennis history.

Of course. Being fierce doesn't make up for talent and I think Borg was every bit the competitor that Connors was. While Connors is super talented, Borg was arguably the greatest talent (with Laver, Hoad and a number of others) in tennis history.

Click to expand...

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

Click to expand...

Mate, no offence but you seem to be peddling your BS in every thread.

Name me one other player who would win the FO by grinding and then 2 weeks later win SW19 by serving and volleying. If that doesn't need talent, then what does?

The only players who you can't knock for not being able to do the above would be players post 2000 because grass was slowed down.

All other players pre-2000 had the opportunity to do what BORG did but none of them were able to do so and that includes sampras,llendl, agassi, mcenroe, connors, becker, edberg. Thats the who's who of the tennis world unable to do what Borg did 3 times. That shows an immense range of talent.

Define talent. With Borg it was more about fitness, mental strength and consistency than great skill, if I am not mistaken.

Click to expand...

It's all opinion of course but Borg was arguably the fastest player that ever lived. He was renown for his great stamina. Many thought he had the best reflexes in tennis. Another person may think he's an untalented bum.

I'll give a mention to Navratilova. 4-22 against Evert and worked her tail off to turn it around and have a winning h2h against her..plus she was the first to win majors and make multiple major finals in 3 different decades, and be in the top 5 in 3 decade's as well I think.

Not that I necessarily pick her outright...but she deserves some credit for not giving up especially against Evert.

Name me one other player who would win the FO by grinding and then 2 weeks later win SW19 by serving and volleying. If that doesn't need talent, then what does?

The only players who you can't knock for not being able to do the above would be players post 2000 because grass was slowed down.

All other players pre-2000 had the opportunity to do what BORG did but none of them were able to do so and that includes sampras,llendl, agassi, mcenroe, connors, becker, edberg. Thats the who's who of the tennis world unable to do what Borg did 3 times. That shows an immense range of talent.

The problem is in a discussion like this, is that the elite players that won grand slam titles will receive most of the nominations. However in any generation, many of the lower ranked players are just as fierce competitors as the big guns, it's just that they are not as talented.

For instance Nicolas Lapentti (who won 16 matches in his career that he faced match points in) was just as big as fighter as Nadal has been. It's only that Nadal is the considerably more talented player. While Nadal has been displaying his fighting spirit in grand slam semi-finals, masters series finals etc, Lapentti was more often displaying his fighting spirit in smaller ATP events.

Similarly Felix Mantilla in the 90s was just as big a fighter as well reknowned warriors and grand slam champions like Muster and Chang. I mean the guy twice won matches that he saved 9 match points in.

That same logic is true as you go further and further down the rankings.

Yes, because winning FO from the baseline and then completely changing your playing style to win on lightning fast grass few weeks later takes no talent at all.

Are you serious? Borg was one of if not the most adaptable player that ever lived, that's enough of a testament to his talent in itself.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of Borg's phenomenal RG-W achievements, and I have watched some of the highlights. I don't think he "completely changed his style" - yes he improved his serve a bit and occasionally came to the net. But he didn't suddenly go from being Vilas at RG to being Edberg at W.

Certainly many players of his era had more skill, most notably McEnroe.

I'm well aware of Borg's phenomenal RG-W achievements, and I have watched some of the highlights. I don't think he "completely changed his style" - yes he improved his serve a bit and occasionally came to the net. But he didn't suddenly go from being Vilas at RG to being Edberg at W.

Certainly many players of his era had more skill, most notably McEnroe.

Click to expand...

LOL a comical post. Trying watching full matches of Borg at RG and Wimbledon (which are readily available on the internet through numerous outlets) and not just brief highlights.

Borg went from regular, long gruelling rallies at Roland Garros, where he could outlast anyone including a physical specimen and fitness freak like Vilas, to serve-volleying on 100% of his first serves in many of his matches at Wimbledon. He even occasionally came to the net on 2nd serves to mix things up. In fact there were some matches like his 1973 QF against Roger Taylor when he consistently came to the net on both 1st and 2nd serves. His serve improved more than 'a bit'. It became a fearsome weapon that he worked hard to develop. He was more than capable of serving opponents off the court on faster surfaces, like he did to guys like Tanner and Nastase. Plus he developed his slice to keep his shots lower on grass and also noticeable shortened his backswing on his return of serve. There was a huge transformation between Borg at RG and Borg at Wimbledon.

And a huge LOL at your comment that many players of his era had more skill than him. Apart from McEnroe, I'd like to see the names of these so-called players.

Connor’s run in 91 was all competitiveness and will to win. His tennis skills had zero impact on those results.

Click to expand...

that just might be a slight exaggeration.....I'd say his heart and competitive nature brought out the skills he had left at that point in his career, if anything....

"Fierce" competitor implies something overt, not under the surface. so people like Connors, Serena and Nadal would be obvious picks. We know that there were some "fiercely quiet" competitors, Borg, Evert, Sampras, Fed, etc.

I'm well aware of Borg's phenomenal RG-W achievements, and I have watched some of the highlights. I don't think he "completely changed his style" - yes he improved his serve a bit and occasionally came to the net. But he didn't suddenly go from being Vilas at RG to being Edberg at W.

Certainly many players of his era had more skill, most notably McEnroe.

Name me one other player who would win the FO by grinding and then 2 weeks later win SW19 by serving and volleying. If that doesn't need talent, then what does?

The only players who you can't knock for not being able to do the above would be players post 2000 because grass was slowed down.

.

Click to expand...

Laver and Budge come to mind immediately.

OK, looked it up.
So post 1947, when Jack Kramer brought in Serve and Volley as the predominant style to 2002 when Lleyton Hewitt won on the slow grass (Ivanisevic won on fast grass in 2001) - people who have won both:

Wrong.Being cocky or agressive is a genetic question but there are many different ways to be competitive and absolutely nothing to do with behaviour tham inner strength and resilience
Were cold champs like Laver,Rosewall,Lacoste,Borg,Lendl,Wilander,Kodes,Sedgman,Kramer,Sampras i,Newcombe,Smith or Federer less competitive than hot extroverts like Tildem,Perry,Budge,Hoad,Gonzales,Nastase,Connors,Agassi,Becker or Nadal?
I do not think so.All of them have made history cause they were all ferocious competitors andit had nothing to do with personaluty

Click to expand...

Great point, I've always thought competitiveness came down ultimately to concentration. Champions can be fiery or quiet, so long as their focus remains sharp and undisturbed.

I'm not sure Budge belongs in your second group. He was often described as consistent and even boring compared to some of his rivals.

McEnroe could be added to your group, and I mention him because he's the first player that comes to mind when I think "temperamental."